Revisiting the Role of PD-L1 Overexpression in Prognosis and Clinicopathological Features in Patients with Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aimed to assess the immunohistochemical expression of PD-L1 in oral  squamous cell carcinomas and its possible association with different histopathological, clinical and prognostic variables in a cohort of patients    from a single institution

The article is quite well written and the message to readers is clear.

My suggestions are as follows:

- The Introduction section  should be enlarged regarding the therapeutic aspect (neoadjuvant therapy) and expression of PD-L1.

- Gingiva should be used in Table 1 instead of gum (as well as in the text), and the legend should contain the meaning of abbreviations

- The photos in Figure 1 a and b do not allow identification of details (may be provide a larger magnification)

- The discussion/conclusion should mention the limitations of this study

- References should be checked to standardize the style.

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for your coments about the article.

1. I have modiffied the introduction so now inmunotheraphy is mentioned in its neoadyuvant aspect, it is hightlighted in the new version.
2. I see your point, but gum is most commonly used in the articles I have read during this revision, thats why I prefer to use this terminology. Also, the abbreviation  of ENE is already explained in line 89.
3. Those are the photos provided by the pathologist, I hope it is not a big problem if they are the ones that remain in the article.
4. I included the limitations of the study in the conclusions of the article, it is hightlighted in the new version.
5. I have reviewed the references.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall this a very good paper with significant information

A few points need to be better highlighted

1 No significant correlation was found between PD -L1 (CPS ≥ 1) sex, smoking status 270 nor tumor location, what about the other CPS?

2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria are important 

3 There is no or very little about Pembrolizumab therapy and I would suggest adding a little explanation of how it works, dosage, and side effects if any

4 Please clarify better the control group

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor English editing needed

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for your review of the article.

1. In table 1 you can see there is no correlation between sex, smoking status nor tumor location when CPS cut point is at 20. We made another analysis using 40 as the cut point and we did not reach any significant correlation neither.
2. I have clarified the inclusion and exclusion criteria in the new version of the manuscript. It is highlighted.
3. I see your point, but I hope you do not mine that I dont talk about Pembrolizumab in the article. It is just because I woudl like to focus on the clinicopathological correlation of OSCCs and PD-L1 and its clinical implications. I am planning to do a systematic review of the literature of anti-PD-L1 as a neoadyuvant theraphy, so then I will write about Pembrolizumab.
4. I compared the clinicophatological variables and survival between patients with OSCCs CPS<1 vs CPS ≥ 1 and between CPS 1-20 vs CPS ≥ 20. I clarified it in table 1. It is highlighted in the new version.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf